Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WAREL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am curious as to what WAREL's defense will be. Isopropyl 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think he will revert the RfC to his preferred version (three times in a row). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] technicalities
OK, I'd be happy to certify that I've tried and failed to resolve the dispute, but I'm not quite sure what the dispute formally is, if (as it says at the top) it has to be a single dispute with a single user. I really thought the issue was more WAREL's continuing abuse of process. If we have to pick one dispute with one user, which one? --Trovatore 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- As I see it, it is basically one dispute, namely about whether to attempt to reach consensus versus completely ignoring the opinion of all other editors, however unanimous and however qualified. LambiamTalk 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the dispute and agree that taking recourse is appropriate. My question is about the notation at the top of the page, which says
- In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
- Is template used to create the page, outdated? The language doesn't seem adapted to disputes of this sort (of which there are a goodly number). --Trovatore 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- The single user in this case is WAREL, also known as DYLAN LENNON. I don't know if a checkuser has ever been requested, but the sockpuppetry is so obvious that it seems a waste of time. LambiamTalk 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, perhaps I misunderstood—I thought it meant a single user on the other side. Perhaps this wording should be clarified in {{RfC}}. --Trovatore 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps posting on Template talk:RfC would be appropriate. Isopropyl 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, perhaps I misunderstood—I thought it meant a single user on the other side. Perhaps this wording should be clarified in {{RfC}}. --Trovatore 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The single user in this case is WAREL, also known as DYLAN LENNON. I don't know if a checkuser has ever been requested, but the sockpuppetry is so obvious that it seems a waste of time. LambiamTalk 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the dispute and agree that taking recourse is appropriate. My question is about the notation at the top of the page, which says
[edit] update
After being unblocked by Oleg so he could defend himself in the RfC, and notified thereof on his talk page, WAREL has not touched or mentioned the RfC, but has performed five reverts or partial reverts in a little over four hours at field (mathematics). --Trovatore 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I guess the RfC will have no effect. Next step: arbcom. -lethe talk + 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- ... or an indef ban. I don't think anybody will mind if WAREL will quietly stop contributing. Such a ban will of course need to be noted at WP:AN/I so people can comment on it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- done. -lethe talk + 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#imminent_ban_of_User:WAREL, that is. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- done. -lethe talk + 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CheckUser
I submitted a CheckUser request on the WAREL and DYLAN_LENNON accounts. I know no one doubts these are the same person, but with solid technical evidence we can permanently block one account until we figure out what to do with the other one. -- Fropuff 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I kind of think blocking one account is kind of irrelevant at this late stage; it seems clear, barring something unexpected, that both accounts are headed for an indefinite (or at minimum very long) bans. In the mean time no real confusion is caused by both accounts being active, as everyone involved knows they're the same person. Still, the formal CheckUser is a good idea, so that when the ban comes down it can be applied to both accounts without qualms. --Trovatore 21:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, it limits the number of reverts needing to be undone per day from 6 to 3, which saves some effort. LambiamTalk 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- That no limits no thing. :) Next time WAREL goes on a reverting spree I will have both accounts blocked indefinitely, and I don't think anybody is going to cry about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, it limits the number of reverts needing to be undone per day from 6 to 3, which saves some effort. LambiamTalk 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser has confirmed that these accounts are socks. Unless there are any objections I'll block the WAREL account indefinitely. It might at least get this user's attention; little else seems to. -- Fropuff 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Block note
I blocked both WAREL and DYLAN indefinitely, but at Dmharvey's suggestion, I shorteneed WAREL's block to a week. The hope here is that a long block may make WAREL change his behavior. If not, he'll get blocked for long periods again. Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef block of WAREL/DYLAN LENNON. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evasion?
With WAREL and DYLAN LENNON blocked, User:64.213.188.94 has reverted field (mathematics) to WAREL's last version. A glance at the talk page suggests WAREL may have used this IP before. However the recent contrib history includes items that don't look like WAREL's style, so it could be a dynamic IP that WAREL draws from time to time (nslookup can't find it). --Trovatore 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
